User talk:Shao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Revert warring

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Users who perform a large number of reversions may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Irpen 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Please, demand the same from other users, who repeatedly revert my edits in "Ukrainian postal codes" article.

2. Even in case of acceptance russian users' demand of exclusively russian transliteration of ukrainian words in English, hyperliks to redirect pages can not break any Wikipedia rules. Please, let it know to fanatics of the russian spelling. Thank you very much indeed! --Shao 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Shao, if you continue this revert warring, I will have to report you. I am tired of it. Please help developing the articles instead. --Irpen

I do not doubt. Every russian patriot cannot tolerate neither existance of any Ukrainian word, nor the world without squeals. BTW, my reverts do not break any Wikipedia rules. --Shao 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not comment on your ethnic talk nor on the speculation about my ethnicity and/or political views. I advise you to not comment on those in the future. --Irpen 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. So, just don't accuse me, if I don't break local rules.--Shao 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring is a violation and will get you blocked unless you stop it. --Irpen 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that other participants of this warring should be blocked as well? Or this rule's application is strictly selective?--Shao 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The rule is that if the user's particular edit is reverted by multiple others, it means that the said user is acting against consensus. By persisting with revert warring disregarding the consensus, the user disrupts the normal editing process. --Irpen 21:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shao, it is common to see hot discussions over the titles of the articles. If it is the case then it is usually a good idea to use the title name in all the references to the articles (unless there are strong reasons to use an alternative name). That way we have only one discussion over the name not one hundred discussions and the readers do not get confused. Both Odessa/Odesa and Kiev/Kyiv are large cities, known to the English readers. We have to use WP:EN the common names in English (we do not want to change all Moscows into Moskvas or Petersburgs into Peterburgs, do we?) It looks like Odessa and Kiev are way more common than the alternative names, that is why after the long discussions the names were adopted as the article title. Please do not restart the discussion in the million places. And yes, we have WP:DE and WP:3RR policies: users who frequently revert without discussion against a consensus of many other users are usually eventually get blocked. Please concentrate on the creating context rather than edit war over names Alex Bakharev 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect pages usage

See hyperlinks in article Reniyskyi Raion to Budzhak and Bugeac. They both are redirects to Budjak. Why it's allowed to use redirects for this geographic area, but prohibited for Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv etc.?

But in general: I had already comprehended (after the stories with Moldovan and Siberian Wikipedias)that it's impossible to beat a russian patriotic lobby in English Wiki, so it's no sense to convince me of this again. I'll just try to do what is possible for my humble capacities. --Shao 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no relation to the article of Reniyskyi Raion and Budjak. If you feel the redirects are abused you are welcome to fix the problem. Regarding Kiev and Odessa there was an extensive discussion. If you have new arguments just file a WP:RM for the articles. Do not be ridiculous it is very easy to to beat the "Russian patriotic lobby" (two active and handful semi-active editors out of thousand wikipedians). WP:SOAPboxing of any persuasion is indeed not tolerated. Alex Bakharev 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't express any propaganda in Wikipedia articles. More over, I don't have a feeling of abused redirects. But I have a strong feeling that redirects are allowed to use in Wikipedia, aren't they? --Shao 10:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at conversation I have started. May be we can do something about this in a good faith.--Bryndza 14:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shao, I specifically asked you above to desist from endless revert wars. I also rerquested someone to talk you out of continued disruption but not block you despite you caused enough disruption by endless revert warring. But please understand that I am now asking you to stop it for the one last time. If you continue the revert warring, I will report you for disruption and you will certainly be blocked. Please propose the changes you want to the Wikipedia naming conventions rather than carry the revert wars to force the changes that contradict the convention. Please take this warning seriously. --Irpen 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My arguments are here. But I am sure that they won't be taken into account (see reasons before). --Shao 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on January 30, 2007 to Ukrainian postal codes

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Odesa emblem.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Odesa emblem.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Shao: 5% for major edits and 11% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 55 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)